If Protestantism is so good, then where was it for the first 1,500 years?

[Brian_Culliton]

I began to investigate the early Church and what I discovered was that it was very apostolic and very Catholic. I studied Catholicism for approximately 5 years. I dissected the doctrines and I discovered that they had reason, logic and were defended by Scripture. I originally had no intention of becoming Catholic, but the more I studied and prayed, the more I longed for Christ in the Eucharist. What I also discovered was that the Catholic faith “completed” my faith. Those contradictions and “troublesome” verses were no longer an issue because they backed up Catholic teaching. In fact, the Bible became very much more alive for me and it also made more sense when teachings were taken from a more ancient perspective.

I investigated the early church too and came to the complete opposite conclusion. Did we investigate the same early church?

 

[Topaz1128]

Here is some good food for thought. It explains that the “church of Christ” was indeed present during the first 1,500 years, and it wasn’t necessarily the “Roman” church.

justforcatholics.org/a180.htm

It’s from a Protestant site and, I think, worth reading.

 

[zz912]

I am going through RCIA right now and an answer to this question would really help solidify my faith in the Catholic Church. Thank you.

The Church has been going through this issue of dealing with heretical break-offs since the beginning. In the history of the Church, there were many times when some group would break off b/c they claimed they had figured it all out and the Church was wrong. Some lasted a few decades, some lasted several centuries. But eventually they fade away. The same will happen to the Protestant heresy, and our separated brothers and sisters in Christ will come back into the Church as Jesus wishes it.

 

[DCNBILL]

How about writings from the early fathers that contradict modern teaching or are you morally vested in possing an impossible challenge?

When one makes a statement, and proclaims it as fact that anyone belived anything about something that they would have very little concept of leaves me questioning their honesty. My response may seem a bit “over the top” but when one considers that the early fathers did not have the 1700 year experience of the development of the Church and the continued fleshing out of theological concepts and social implications over the years, I, for one would be very hesitant to say what they believe about the Church as it stands today.

 

[Scoobyshme]

The Body of Christ was not a little baby at Pentecost.

If anyone wants to know how mature Christ was at Pentecost, one need only read the first chapter of Acts. No little babies there.

…

It’s not about how mature Christ was, Atemi. It’s about how mature His Mystical Body, the Church was. The Church, at Pentecost, was in its infancy. It was incredibly small, disorganized, and very regional. Today, there are over 1.1 billion Catholics, worldwide. The doctrines of the Body of Christ were not fully understood at that time. That’s why the first 500 years after Jesus ascended to heaven saw so many christological heresies crop up. Who was Christ? What was His nature, etc.?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Here is some good food for thought. It explains that the “church of Christ” was indeed present during the first 1,500 years, and it wasn’t necessarily the “Roman” church.

justforcatholics.org/a180.htm

It’s from a Protestant site and, I think, worth reading.

Excellent article! Joe Mizzi has a lot of good information on his website. I highly recommend it!

 

[FRANKYG]

Here is some good food for thought. It explains that the “church of Christ” was indeed present during the first 1,500 years, and it wasn’t necessarily the “Roman” church.

justforcatholics.org/a180.htm

It’s from a Protestant site and, I think, worth reading.

No real proof of anything, IMO, i think most protestants have prejudice and hate towards the RCC, so they let there hearts fill up with pride and deny the true church… They refuse to listen , and ultimately lose much of even their protestant faith…

My friends, we have so many ‘‘signs’’ and miracles that you cannot fathom. We have eucharistic miracles, incurropted bodies, aparitions, etc… Our faith does not rely on ‘‘signs’’ but they are still there to show that the RCC is the ONE and ONLY TRUE CHURCH

 

[Atemi]

the “church of Christ” was indeed present during the first 1,500 years, and it wasn’t necessarily the “Roman” church.

Yes.

For any denomination to confuse the Body of Christ with itself is the beginning of great error.

The errors only multiply after that.

…

 

[Atemi]

No real proof of anything, IMO, i think most protestants have prejudice and hate towards the RCC, so they let there hearts fill up with pride and deny the true church… They refuse to listen , and ultimately lose much of even their protestant faith…

My friends, we have so many ‘‘signs’’ and miracles that you cannot fathom. We have eucharistic miracles, incurropted bodies, aparitions, etc… Our faith does not rely on ‘‘signs’’ but they are still there to show that the RCC is the ONE and ONLY TRUE CHURCH

I do see lots of “pride” and “hate” here, but it is not in a Protestant post.

…

 

[Atemi]

**The Body of Christ was not a little baby at Pentecost.

If anyone wants to know how mature Christ was at Pentecost, one need only read the first chapter of Acts. No little babies there.**

It’s not about how mature Christ was, Atemi. It’s about how mature His Mystical Body, the Church was.

What part of the “Body of Christ” is hard to understand?

Sorry, but the man Jesus Christ was no baby as He ascended, and He is Head of His Body.

The Body of Christ is not some monstrosity with an adult, mature Head, and a tiny, immature and infantile Body.

The Church, at Pentecost, was in its infancy.

You will never find the Holy Spirit or His Apostles saying such a thing in over 260+ chapters of the NT.

Now we can make such things up if we like, but we must recognize that is our own invention, not the Lord’s instruction.

The doctrines of the Body of Christ were not fully understood at that time.

Incredible error.

Sorry, but you cannot convince me you or any Catholics understand the Christian doctrines better than the Apostles did.

Please.

…

 

[Tomster]

I am going through RCIA right now and an answer to this question would really help solidify my faith in the Catholic Church. Thank you.

It did not exist.

 

[FRANKYG]

I do see lots of “pride” and “hate” here, but it is not in a Protestant post.

…

I beg to differ brother… I am PROUD to be a catholic…

Point is, protestants never have any real proof to back up their speculation

I think we should all do a prayer before we do any posting,

I for one do not HATE nobody, I just wish most protestants would do some real research more often

 

[Atemi]

So you are saying that the Catholic Church does not teach what the Apostles taught?

No, I did not say anything like that. We teach exactly what the Apostles taught, which includes how to develop doctrine.

Really?

Can you please show us where the Apostles taught “how to develop doctrine”?

If you are going to cite the Apostles for this, surely you can show us where they taught such a thing.

What book, chapter, and verse is that in?

Which Apostles taught this?

…

 

[Tomster]

Really?

Can you please show us where the Apostles taught “how to develop doctrine”?

If you are going to cite the Apostles for this, surely you can show us where they taught such a thing. We would hate to think someone would make something like this up.

What book, chapter, and verse is that in?

Which Apostles taught this?

…

Try the first council in Jerusalem. Have you read the book of Acts lately?

 

[Atemi]

Try the first council in Jerusalem. Have you read the book of Acts lately?

Sorry, but nowhere in the book of Acts does it tells us the Apostles taught “how to develop doctrine.”

Still looking.

…

 

[Tomster]

Sorry, but nowhere in the book of Acts does it tells us the Apostles taught “how to develop doctrine.”

Still looking.

…

Try again.

 

[Atemi]

I beg to differ brother… I am PROUD to be a catholic…

I know.

Point is, protestants never have any real proof to back up their speculation

The same can be said of many Catholic claims.

I think we should all do a prayer before we do any posting,

Maybe you should do that.

I for one do not HATE nobody, I just wish most protestants would do some real research more often

Many of us do.

…

 

[DCNBILL]

Try the first council in Jerusalem. Have you read the book of Acts lately?

And then one can move to the letters of Saint Paul, now there is some excellent theological development in response to problems creeping up within the Church!

 

[Tomster]

Yes.

For any denomination to confuse the Body of Christ with itself is the beginning of great error.

The errors only multiply after that.

…

Then why do many Protestant sects claim they are part of the Body of Christ when they disagree on many points of doctrine? You are correct about one thing, though, the Protestant version of developement of doctrine has produced countless errrors.

 

[Tomster]

And then one can move to the letters of Saint Paul, now there is some excellent theological development in response to problems creeping up within the Church!

Thank you very much!

I did not want to overtax our esteemed adversary.

Let’s give him some time to blow the dust off of his Bible.